I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on who/what are trusted sources of product info then…
Sure GCN/GMBN for example is basically pay-for-play advertising, and there are other less-than-scrupulous sources too…
but are you saying that noone on who has had pre-release access to products is truthful?
Yeah I realized that after I looked into it more.
You definitely should listen critically, he feels very strongly that he is right. I remember the disc brake discussion where I completely agree with his conclusion (180 mm rotors should be an option on road bikes to accommodate heavier riders), but his line of argumentation is wrong or weak.
Still, I thought he brought up fair points. Although in all my decades of mountain bike riding, I have yet to bend a rear derailleur hanger. Not sure if I got lucky or if “I don’t ride hard enough”.
Even if we agree that SRAM’s construction is a trade-off, going off the youtube reviews it seems that shifting really is a lot better. (I realize that this is not independent testing, but you can tell by how much/little emphasis reviewers put on selling points whether there is a there there — or not.) I think SRAM’s goal to allow for shifting under any load makes sense, especially given the rising popularity of e-mountain bikes.
Both do know their stuff and should be taken seriously. (I wish Hambini were less clown-ish, I’d watch him much more often.) It also comes with how they present themselves, which is that they know how things are done correctly. But that doesn’t mean they are always right.
It also hurts them when they want to build a community. I once posted a question on Hambini’s page, asking why wheel manufacturers seem to have converged to a more rounded shape for rim profiles. His answer wasn’t very inviting. (The article was well-written, though, and I wasn’t even arguing with him.)
My brother worked for Germany’s biggest gaming magazine for a few years. Many advertisers would get reviews in advance, and my brother was asked to revise some of his articles by his boss. However, there are some trusted magazines/reviewers. The more they do independent testing and invest into testing rigs, and acquire the know-how, the more likely it is that they keep things scientific.
Still, I think you can divine something out of even biased reviews. E. g. in one case my brother would only allow his boss to adjust the final score, but not change the text in the article. If, say, shifting of a new next-gen groupset works just as well as in the previous generation, you can hear that when you listen to the review. (SRAM’s new Force AXS groupset comes to mind.)
I still think this is pretty baffling, and a bit of a problem for component manufacturers: correct functionality, especially when you want to push things, relies on tolerances. Things like putting on old-school bottom brackets on modern carbon frames aren’t really a solution since this shows in other parts as well (my previous aluminum mountain bike had a constantly slipping seat post, the hole in the frame was slightly too large).
I don’t see where he claims a washer with teeth is up against the carbon frame. It appears it won’t touch the carbon. Also, there is some sort of through axle that would distribute the stress differently.
I’m not going to trust marketing materials as gospel, but as an engineer myself the idea that I’m going take some youtuber’s reaction video as gospel is equally absurd. Peak Torque may be a very talented and knowledgeable mechanical engineer but who do you all think designed this new derailleur? Hint, it was a whole big ass team of highly qualified mechanical engineers, mostly at SRAM’s German engineering HQ. Why would I default to a single engineer’s viewpoint as being definitive based on their watching a single promo video vs an entire team of engineers that spent years designing, analyzing and testing a product?
Transmission may very well end up being a solution in search of a problem but actual hands on use and testing will establish that. I’m definitely not joining the waitlist to buy one, but I’ll reserve judgement until the first adopters have beta tested this on the rest of our behalf’s.
For the cost of me replacing my entire AXS drivechain, it would make more sense to sell my whole bike secondhand and buy a brand new Santa Cruz with transmission already equipped. That way for the same price I get a brand new top spec bike… Food for thought for others.
The shifting under load sounds like the biggest advantage. I’ve had more than a few situations in races where eagle gets hung up when I screw up and have to dump a bunch of gears running into a unexpected steep spot. My 2017 spark rc isn’t udh and I’m still pretty happy with that bike (just put a new fork on it), but this is one more straw on the camel’s back that will eventually have me upgrading to something new. Not this year, but I won’t be able to hold out too much longer. The bike industry has my number…
The 3% PMs all use the same spindle based left only PM technology as Rival cranks. I have to assume it’s simply cheaper to make 3% accuracy PMs than 1.5% PMs. The premium for adding power to XO is only $100!
As to your question (why cheaper), maybe a mix of most/all of those things? Accurate PMs are surprisingly hard to do well I guess.
Here’s my thought on the main difference: the spindle PM is a small unit glued inside of an already existing spindle part. So it’s much cheaper to make than a load-bearing spider, but maybe also harder to engineer with great accuracy.
remember when PT didn’t focus on making silly reaction videos with dramatic claims based on his lack of understanding of how things actually work? 
Fanatik took a look at the new SRAM transmittion derailleur regarding stability (long video): It took a 1,342 mph fastball to break SRAM Transmission - YouTube
He’s really grasping at straws, in the youtube comments the concentric axle mount was pointed out and he still thinks it can be misaligned because of radial tolerances in the m12 threads. These aren’t parts going into a space ship lol.
I was on the Santa Cruz website earlier today and it looks like for multiple of their bikes they dropped the Carbon C version and don’t have a more base model anymore with GX or similar. It looks like the lowest end for many of their bikes is like 7k and will have one of these group sets on them. Anyone have more info? I know SC is a premium brand but to have very little in the 3-5k range seems very dumb
Id like to revisit this post a year from now to see how right or wrong I am… But I think this is a flop for a few reasons…
Sram is banking on the roadie mindset with this, which is “spend shit-tons of money to be incrementally better”. At least in my group of MTB friends, this doesnt work. I think we’re in uncertain economic times, people are genuinely worried about the safety of their money, and I dont see most people spending $3k on JUST the groupset. As a parallel, look at the Rolex market, another unnecessary luxury good. Watches that have been unobtainable for 3 years from authorized dealers and going for 100+% markup gray market are all of a sudden available with no relationship to the dealers, something you previously had to have to even start a conversation. The last month or so, watch forums have been flooded with “got the call from my AD for my watch”. The same people that can spend $20K on a watch are in the same tax bracket as the folks shopping a $10+k MTB.
Everyone is talking about the strength of the RD and how hard it is to break it, but no ones talking about the strength of the rear triangle and how costly that is when it breaks. I thought we learned this 20 years ago? This cute dance that sram has all their sponsored riders doing standing on their RD is great, but what about a 180# rider hitting a rock at 15mph. Im patiently waiting to see the broken frame posts in the next 6 mo…
I love new tech. I really do, but at these prices, I dont see a huge adoption. Maybe when next years end of season sales hit?
people deciding to buy or not buy the groupset as an upgrade for their current setup is not what’s going to determine the success of this release financially.
Absolutely agree, but their ability and willingness to spend the money for a complete bike with it will.
it sounds like they werent in the market anyway though, but in the future they might be so it’s good that there is this option out there for them.
off topic, but the watch market example you brought up… really hard to make a comparison outside of the broadest terms, given how weird and artificially crazy it is with reselling etc.
Pricing is about the same as eagle AXS. I think that’s doing quite well at OEM level.
Dead on. This forum is highly biased toward folks that might upgrade their groupsets, swap out parts, build bikes from frame and parts, etc. That is a nice “bonus” segment for SRAM (and likely high margin at time of launch), but it’s probably less than 5% of their volume. The vast majority of their volume/focus is OEM. When buying a new bike, are these new features going to make buyers have a preference for a sram bike over shimano? The answer to that question will determine SRAM’s success. If I had to chose between a axs transmission equipped bike vs. latest greatest shimano, it would be a no-brainer in favor of SRAM. But I’m also biased after running “old” axs for some time and pretty happy with it.
